Peter Palchinsky
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Peter Palchinsky
-
-
Honch, your mod rocks!!! I love your orders of battle, improvements to the map features, and the unit sizes (ground, naval, and air). Corps level fits the SOE map scale much better than the army one does, and I'm so happy to see there aren't enough MPPs to keep all units at full strength and I have to make more realistic priorities and take risks. It is a breath of fresh air that SC should seriously consider incorporating into their next patch. Well, I'm at the gates of Warsaw, so only played 3 turns so far, but I'll keep notes and let you know if I have any more questions/comments.
PP
-
The main point that has to be stressed, is a need to delay the unprovoked Soviet war entry until the mid 1942. That could give some more of a free hand to the Axis, but on the other hand would need to be offset by a possibility of a war declaration by Stalin against the neutral countries and maybe earlier US entry, as the German focus on the Med and the Atlantic sphere would probably seriously get on the nerves of Uncle Sam.
I like where this is going. In addition to increasing US mobilization, a 1942 USSR mobilization should have more Soviet units than in the current 1941 scenario and additional techs that automatically trigger in 1942 to put pressure on Germany to attack sooner rather than later. Has anyone noticed a difference between the units that the USSR starts with if Germany attacks first versus Soviet DoW. I hope there's a difference. I would assume Stalin would have called in his Siberian units before declaring war, but that doesn't seem to happen, and I don't think Soviet units are in optimal attack positions and at full strength either.
-
So as prolonged German campaign against France would played out well for Uncle Joe, I think that for the game purposes, the unprovoked USSR should join the Allies in the summer of 1942. It would be also interestiong to allow Soviet Union declare war against neutral countries, but not against the Axis.
Yes, I agree with Soviet DoW on minor nations allied to Germany, but perhaps have a DE for German player to intervene without necessarily declaring war by purchasing additional units called "volunteer" units (like the Chinese did in Korean War). That would be interesting if Romania, Finland, or Turkey were attacked. If Germany doesn't purchase them, then a sharp loss in NM would occur. By the way, I don't recall off hand if any DEs are associated with NM losses/gains. Maybe that's opportunity for another improvement since NM acts similar to national prestige.
PP
-
I agree with Ivanov that it is difficult to replicate doctrine and will power in SC; however, maybe more French units could be added but allow tactical bombers to cause units without AAA ability to retreat. The Stuka units had a great affect on the second rate French troops especially.
Anyway, the Vichy point brings up another area that could add flavor which is the Mediterranean option that Admiral Raeder pushed for in 1940. However, right now there isn't enough time to conquer the Med before deploying for Barbarossa in 1941 because the USSR declares war too soon. Has anyone seen the USSR declare war in 1942 if the German player tries not to upset them? I don't subscribe to "Operation Groza", so I believe the soonest that Stalin would have considered starting a fight would have been in 1942, not 1941. That would allow the Soviet Army to recover better from the purges and to complete their secret mobilization schedule. However, SC forces a showdown in 1941, so the Med option is usually discarded. It might make things a bit more interesting as you plow through Poland and France and decide whether to deliver a knockout blow in the Med and then prepare for a 1942 Barbarossa, or put the Med on hold until you defeat the USSR.
-
Thanks Honch. With Yugoslavia breaking into smaller states did you alter how partisans pop up?
-
Honch, would you consider a couple new features in your next update? The first occurs when the allies take Rome and Italy surrenders, then the axis player is asked to create the Italian Social Republic as a puppet state at some cost and receives a 2 garrison units with option to build Graziani HQ, 2 corps and 1 fighter unit OR not to create it and saves MMPs. If ISR is created then allies get an Italian puppet state too with 2 garrison units and can build 3 corps. Also, if Yugoslavia is conquered then it's borders should be adjusted as was historical and the axis player is asked to create greater Croatia as a puppet state of Germany at a certain cost and receives a couple garrison units with option to build a corps OR not and save MMPs.
-
Bill, thanks for your feedback. I like the score system you mention and the suggested NM change with regards Holland. I'm glad to hear about the blockade's 1-2% NM effect on US. Seems like the research would support raising this. There were US notes to both Germany and Britain regarding subs and the blockade respectively, but obviously the US leaders viewed subs as the more important.
I really like Sharkman's idea about investing into NM at TGW cost of buying more units. To me either serves the same purpose of trying to win the war, so giving the players another instrument is good. Along that vein, I'd like to ask if it's practical to give players the ability to control economic aid instead of the current tax system. I'd like a controller similar to the diplomacy one, where economic aid is controlled as an amount or percentage of some sort. If that's not practical, then another idea is a DE asking the player to approve so much economic aid each year OR to choose no aid with the chance that the beneficiary's NM might drop 1-2% each time it's rejected. Also, if it's rejected once, then the same DE pops up once a quarter until aid is given.
Also, I like Sharkman's suggestion for 2 tiles for Verdun, which adds more value to holding that area. Right now, it's not the "none shall pass" point the French viewed it as. However, I'd add that since Falkenhayn knew this about Verdun, he deliberately planned only to siege it, not capture it, so he could rack up a disproportionate amount of French casualties. Unfortunately for him his plan was not carried out and some local German commanders tried to capture the forts instead. This initial half hearted offensive led to the slugging match that occurred.
-
I think you are correct, Ludi; the blockade should have an effect on US mobilization. However, my understanding is that there is zero or almost negligible effect, but Bill could confirm this. If the effect is zero, then it seems you'd agree that a change is needed. I think there should be an effect so that a German player could reasonably expect the US to remain neutral if it doesn't adopt unrestricted submarine warfare. Such a course allows Britain to gain greater strength in the short term, but if the goal is a neutral US, then one should be prepared for this side effect. In the longterm, it seems Britain should see declining economic aid from the US. Of course, diplomacy and military effects could upset this calculus too.
PP
-
I agree, Bill, it would be very interesting. I think brigades and battalions would be the appropriate level, but I haven't studied the campaign in too much detail. Having only battalion level seems too tactical. What say you? Can you say if such mini scenarios are being worked? I haven't noticed much in the way of WWI mods as there was when SC2 first came out.
-
Ludi, it sounds to me that you focused on Russia first, not Belgium and France. If so, you had 0% NM mostly because of the blockade, right? Were you able to interrupt the blockade with your fleet, or perhaps you didn't have an aggressive enough u-boat/raider campaign to counter it's effect.
Anyway, I've had similar results against the AI when I tried a strategy of not antagonizing the USA, not realizing till later that they enter the war about the same time no matter Germany's strategy. In my game the blockade killed Germany, but AH's NM was about the same as it usually is. Maybe the blockade is not balanced. If left uninterrupted, should it have a decisive result regardless the military situation? Bill knows best how the point system works, so I'd ask him how long it would take for Germany's NM to reach zero if only the blockade is turned on. I bet it's pretty quick without the expected counter points from occupying key terrain, destroying units, interrupting Britain's supply lines, and forcing countries to surrender. However, historically in 1918 Germany was close to starvation while launching initially "successful operations" that may have succeeded in reaching Paris if used more effectively to destroy French armies, not British. If so, surely Ludi is correct to believe Germany would have continued the war in his game regardless of the blockade. The current method of rewarding points might take too long to accumulate, or the blockade should not be decisive on it's own, but be limited to how far it can reduce German NM.
Of course when we talk about "balance" we only have the historical outcome to use as a reference point; we don't know what really would have happened if Germany went east instead of west. Would Britain have been able to declare war as soon as it did without the invasion of Belgium? I believe Britain would have provided economic aid to the Entente, but could not have conducted a blockade. Surely, the politicians would have eventually found a casus belli, but it might have been 1915 or longer if Germany were seen as the defender against Russian aggression instead.
My point is that each game that digresses from history is liable to have strategic balance issues no matter the fixes because it is a pseudo-strategic game system. To fix a lot of the strategic type of balance problems would either have players repeat history as much as possible in order not to suffer seemingly pointless outcomes, OR to make the game more flexible by using more DEs with additional possible scenarios. What if the game began with a DE for the Russian player, who historically held the initiative, to decide whether to support Serbia in July 1914 or to wait and see if the Serbs can hold out through the winter and allow Russia to secretly mobilize until it felt prepared to attack AH and/or Germany? Otherwise the Russian player chooses to attack AH and/or Germany. If you like digressing from history you may find this interesting, but clearly this is complicated and leads to many outcomes. An alternative start is a DE asking the German player whether to follow through with the Schlieffen Plan (as the general staff wanted), OR to go east (as the Kaiser wanted) and suffer lack of surprise and a mobilized France in the rear. If the latter, then perhaps a different point system takes into account that Germany will gain the morale advantage of not appearing as an aggressor. Again, these strategic level decisions are difficult to work into SC.
I haven't seen much interest in these type of discussions on the forum, but would still like to pose a what-if scenario: if the Kaiser had his way would Germany have lasted as long as it did historically? According to the current game system Germany would be defeated much sooner because the points from the blockade accumulate quickly if Germany is not an aggressive SOB and launches a WWII style fight on it's neighbors. To me that's the main imbalance because it's not a balance of power struggle as WWI started out to be, but a life or death WWII game system that's been modified for refighting WWI battles. Therefore, digression can't be rewarded under the current game system, so players will continue to see "imbalances" when they don't follow history, and it would take a monumental effort to insert enough flexibility to allow serious digressions at the strategic level.
Does anyone have a different perspective on ahistorical strategic decisions and how well SC should accommodate them or not? There is a Patton goes East engine, so anyone up for a Germany goes East scenario for WWI with it's own point system?
PP
-
It might be more interesting to do the East Africa campaign with a map coving Kenya down to Mozambique and use corps units as brigades. A world map is a lot of effort since Japan is on allied side in WWI. anyone else interested in seeing an East Africa mod...I'm thinking something on scale of Spanish Civil War from SC2. I love that mod, as well as the Battle of the Bulge mod, and wish SC had more mods at that unit level.
-
My proposal is to go back to SC2 Blitzkrieg with the Global version and have just two types of air units; Tactical (Combine the fighters & tactical bombers) and Strategic (the bomber). I go a little farther... combine the destroyers and cruiser and call them light fleets. Call Battleships heavy fleets...
Yes, Carverrt, I agree on both points. Air and naval "fleets" should be used in a "strategic" game; especially one covering the globe with little space to spare for individual countries. Such units would reduce clutter and the need to manage tactical air/naval engagements. A swing towards more strategic level play might alleviate debates over topics that are more germaine to the tactical realm while developing an environment more conducive for improving other strategic concepts like supply, command and control of units, and economic centers of gravity. Also, development of more DEs might foster grand strategic thinking in the community. How about a call for DEs that provide players strategic level decisions with second and third order affects instead of the traditional yes/no choice? Current DEs lose their luster after playing the games a few times. More robust DEs that multiply the possible benefits/costs yet focus on decisions at the political leader level would keep their luster.
PP
-
If we're talking 3-4 months, then count me in too.
-
I'm interested but time is a constraint for me, so place me if you need an even number. Will deadlines be established for completing individual games? How much time per game?
-
Glabro, in most of my games AH units on eastern front gain experience quickly and by late 1915 many corps are 10+ strength. It is my view that this is an imbalance because AH units did not perform well historically. My fix is to limit their ability to gain 10+ strength. As I thought about it more I believe Italy, Turkey and all neutrals should be limited too. I'm inclined to do the same with Russia but this might cause another imbalance with respect to German units, but it needs to be tested. My fix for Russia was to ask if only certain units could be allowed the strength increases vs. all units a nation possesses.
PP
-
Hi
As I hope to start work this week on making changes to the WWI campaigns ready for the next patch, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the balance of the WWI campaigns, and especially of 1914 Call to Arms.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill, just two things for now.
1) Experience level of units should not allow automatic increases in strength for all nations. In my view only Germany, France, Britain, and US deserve this perk. For all other nations the max strength should be 10 no matter the experience level. For play balance I'd entertain Russia too. But can the 10+ strength bonuses be limited to certain units of a nation; for example, only ground units?
2) Allow "economic aid" to be turned off by the owner. It would be nice to make it based on a sliding scale percent with max of 10% of total income per nation u wish to aid.
PP
-
Maybe this f4 feature will give you the desired results under "hot seat" play option.
Turns out that none of the F keys can be used during hot seat mode. I've been testing their use in SC2 WaW, so haven't tried any keys in TGW yet.
-
Thx, I'll give it a try too.
-
Yes, but it returns control of my origianl side only, not the AI's original side. You see, I'm asking for a feature that allows you to switch sides with the AI so you can keep playing the game and try to turn the tide of war as xwormwood says above.
-
Okay pzgrdr, what you say may be correct, but is not what I expected it would be. Using F4 mearly hands over to the AI your side's turn, but doesn't allow you to take over the AI side's turn in return. That's what I was looking for. So, I'm with xwormwood and hoping to see that feature added in the near future.
By the way, I liked how toggling F3 disables the animation between turns and speeds up the AI's turn.
PP
-
Thanks; I'll try it out.
-
I recall another computer wargame allowed players to switch sides when playing the AI, but i forget the name of the game. This feature would be interesting for SC, but maybe quite difficult to implement Sometimes when I'm playing the AI I just want to take control and see if could do better instead of just ending the game out of frustration. This would be better than playing solitaire since you still have the AI to play with.
-
Assuming no naval arms race between G and GB, imagine that G focuses on building up its army instead and is able to field an additional 7-9 corps by 1914. However, F and R would be hard pressed to match this increase, but an additional 3 corps for F and 3-5 corps for R might be conceivable given a strong desire. In addition, without the naval race GB is less likely to become officially associated with F and R by 1914, and might be neutral, yet cautious, should war break out because of the assassination in Sarejevo. Also, it is assumed that the Schlieffen plan is devised regardless of the state of the G navy (as was the case historically); however, it is not likely that western G could support these additional troops, so they might likely be earmarked as a high command reserve or as a new army in eastern G. How do you place the additional corps as the G player (assume 8 corps)? Would additional artillery and airforce units be likely; if so, how many of each? Also what ships would not have been built by G and GB? Next, assuming G invades Belgium, what is the reaction of GB; are they neutral but with a 30% increase in mobilization, or do they declare war regardless of the naval race not taking place? Lastly, if GB is neutral through 1915 and assuming no secret talks in London take place, then how likely will Italy honor its alliance with G? Does Italy mobilize in 1914 or early 1915, or stay neutral no matter what unless F were on the verge of collapse (<25% NM)?
-
In retrospect, the "fleet" counters in Second Front are actually called Task Forces (TF), which seem more appropriate for an operational or strategic level game rather than individual classes of warships. There was a WWI mod for SC2 that was done by a French player who used fleet counters, which I thought worked quite well.
Storm Over Europe / game balance and unexploited potential
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
May 42 lines up well if Soviet DoW is also pushed to summer 42 instead of 1941as it is now. That would give the Soviets a significant punch. Currently, if the German player is too busy to launch Barbarrosa, a Soviet DoW doesn't see much agressive action, but it should. There should be a greater sense of risk for the German player than merely operating in holding units along the border and never seeing a serious threat to Warsaw or Bucharest.